Creation vs. Evolution
By Keiti | February 6, 2008
I’m almost not sure where to start since it always reminds me of the which came first the chicken or the egg argument – it’s a vicious circle with no beginning, no end, and no clear consensus.
Each side, of course, presents compelling arguments and each side is adamant that they’re right.
I say they both are. And aren’t.
Chicken. Egg.
When it comes to the Bible, there are actually two separate creation stories. The first runs from Genesis 1:1-2:3. The second from Genesis 2:4-22. Both give clear accounts as to how God created the earth, but the approach in each is opposite the other.
The first account details bringing the earth into creation starting from nothing: God starts with making the division between heaven and earth, then added light and darkness, differentiated between earth and sea, brought in the plant life, created the sun, moon, and stars, followed by living creatures, then humans.
Took six days. On the Seventh He rested. (Frankly, I’d take a bit of a breather, too.)
In the second story, the order begins with the creation of human beings with everything else falling in behind.
The first story emphasizes order and reliability under the sovereign power of God. Not unlike evolution where everything is ordered and just so. The second is a reflection of man’s thinking (i.e. human nature), that he is above all else (except God, of course).
Contrary to popular belief on both sides of the fence, the biblical stories of creation are not competing with other creation theories – not even evolution. While there is evidence to support an ordered progression of evolution, it is not without fault nor without holes. There are theories of progression, but the progression is not entirely understood. Each theory (word used purposefully), allows someone to understand the universe more fully and to be more aware of his or her place within said universe. And that is far more important than proving whose is bigger by laying claim to fully understanding exactly how, why and by Whom the earth was created.
So, I guess the question comes down to which creation theory I believe.
Simply saying yes to one and no to another would be too easy, so I’ll leave you with this thought:
In The King and I there is an exchange between The King (Yul Brynner) and Anna Leonowens (Deborah Kerr) where The King is expressing disdain because men of science and men of faith couldn’t agree on how the earth was created. Anna turns to him and says something to the effect of regardless of whether the earth was created in six days or if it took millions of years, it’s still the same miracle.
And so say I.
Topics: The Bible According to Misfit |
February 7th, 2008 at 4:13 am
In Christianity there is a competition for possession of our souls - Jadaism is not quite as absolute and that’s reflected in the fact it is an exclusive club but then again this is the origins of the Christian God - there is a tension there between Christianity and Judaism. There is a belief as it is given in the very act of being aware (consciousness) that we are physically finitely real (hence the nature, reflection, of the soul) - Jesus would actually be the only ‘truth’ as a possible physically real existence - God as The physical. The creation stories in this sense remain a viable explanation - time and space are only given in The physical reality - which is God through Jesus (as the only physical reality).
Modern science has since been forced to abandoned this arguement of finite physical reality - at least partly. This is to say that even Darwins theories do not hold water to todays Evolutionary Theories, just as Newton’s laws are no longer applicable as even Einsteins theories of relative time and space (constants) are no longer viable. Quantum physics and Modern Evolution no longer function with constants as physical-finite-reality and time and space are given to an X value - we are no longer ‘necessarily’ connected to the act of ‘our own thinking process’.
Things like ‘Earth’ and other objects (as descriptions) you are talking about are really only abstractions. It’s all about the act of thinking and since science has abandoned the ‘I’ as the only absolute relationship, it could now be said that science has become ‘pagan’ or as I like to say ‘pantheistic’ but science still doesn’t want to address the fact that the X then becomes our source of existence - as we appear in the relationship. The ancient civilazions and even Hindus, Daoist, Native Americans and Taoist would have a god which fills in this X - and for the moment I have garlic. Christianity is in a bitter battle for this nonexistant-physical-self or else Christ would have no meaning.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Keith,
This post isn’t (or wasn’t) supposed to be about the differences between religions or the specific philosophical aspects of religion - I’m saving that for a time when I’m feeling especially masochistic.
- I wanted to concentrate on the creation stories (of which there are many that I didn’t even mention).
I don’t believe there is a Christian God or a Jewish God or an Islamic God or a Hindu God or a Buddhist God, et al. My dad and I have this argument constantly - It’s not as if there are a bunch of Gods sitting where ever they sit having a crap game over believers. God is God, just different paths to reach Him - hence my belief that each path is different for each person.
The argument of creation vs. evolution is a learning curve, hence the departure from Darwin to Evolution - we learn as we go along - we have faith in whatever theory makes sense to us (faith being the key word).
What I was trying to point out (perhaps unsuccessfully), is that it’s a moot point about which version is the right version because the fact of the matter is that the argument is nothing more than human beings squabbling over whose story is true and because of the squabbling they miss the whole point. Kind of like the old adage of not being able to see the forest for the trees. People spend so much time focusing on the stories that they forget about the magnitude of the outcome.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
I think you’re confusing God with existence and the former holds a moral conantation which delivers life in all of it conflict and harmony and the latter is - or as Bergson would say ‘ising’. The way you’re framing your topic is really a discussion about ‘your’-’self’.
You have to first understand ‘where’ the idea of God arises and that is in the act of consciousness - that was my point and the second point I was trying to make was that the very nature of the your discourse reveals that there are many different gods. I was hoping to make aware that the idea of a God is no longer applicable in, or as ‘our consciousness’ - God is dieing in this sense or as Nietzsche’s old addage goes… I think therefore I stink? Oh wait, that’s my addage.
Just like variation in species there is a reason why there are many gods, or even within Christianity for example a varying amount of Christian gods and not just one and this is probably closer to the current theories of Evolution and physics - but how do ‘I’ fit into this equation becomes a dilemma in both religion and science - the stories are not ‘objective bedtime make me feel good truths’ but they are part of our lives as we exist - the Richard Dawkins of this world don’t acknowledge this aspect either and that’s why Evolutionists are always a hundred years behind the physicists and always seem to carry a certain amount of hypocrisy with them.
The one god experience is ‘not an experience’ was the point I was trying to make in explaining the origins of the awareness as it is spiritual. I also find it difficult to read things about ‘creation stories’ and ‘evolutionary theory’ when this context of the discussion (ie, as they are revealed in our understanding or consciousness) are not given in the discourse. To do so is a radical fundementalist awareness - for either evolutionary theory or Christian beliefs. That is to say, or begs to question; when reading Genesis 1:1-2:3 or Genesis 2:4-22 does the experience transcend time and space and offer the awareness of life? If so then you have found a god.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
You had to know that writing this blog would bring me into the action. Heck, it’s what the Origins of Garlic Cures is all about. It’s a creation story and garlic is the story teller - or god.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
And I think you, Keith, are reading far more into what I wrote – and nowhere did I state that there were many different gods. What I said was that there is one God with many different interpretations of said God. I say what I mean – you know that.
As for the confusing between God and existence – didn’t even go there. But of course the whole idea of “where do I fit into this” falls into the realm of normal human existence – what’s the point of being here if one isn’t going to at least attempt to figure out where the puzzle pieces fit? But I’m not a philosopher, which you very well know, and I think I can venture to say that most laypeople aren’t either – at least not to the same extent that you are. (You and your freakin’ high IQ… ;-))
I have to disagree with you on the whole “one God experience is not an experience” thing – to suggest that it’s not does a disservice to those who believe in one God. Experiencing God doesn’t have to be in Church or a temple or a mosque. God (or nature or the universe or however you want to refer to it), is within everything on this earth and doesn’t require going to church or reading the Christian Bible – or any of the other texts associated with God. Experiencing what goes on around us or within us is all part of the human condition, be it on the back of a bike pedaling through the middle of nowhere or sitting in the middle of the forest listening to the sounds of the animals therein or reading a good book that reaches us on an emotional level. The experience of connecting with that which is bigger than each of us is where God can be found.
Back to the original post, the whole point is that the argument between evolution and creation is stupid because it really serves no purpose except to cater to inflated egos. It was never a post intended to put forth anything except that.
(And, of course, I knew that writing this blog would bring you into the action - I’m not scared of you! Ha! :-))
February 8th, 2008 at 2:38 am
As for ‘figuring it out’ goes that’s in a department that belongs to Epistemology and this is reflective of a Christian-Judea experience of existence. I think when you use God as some kind of universal purpose or (the only) possible experience you’re confusing it with Being - that is to say Jeffery Dahmer was engaged in a spiritual enterprise just as Adolf Hitler was but it doesn’t mean we share the same Gods, just One existence (Being). That was the key to understanding the Columbine shooters and others like them (even our invasion of the Middle East is a religious enterprise) - this is what a suicide bomber is effect elliciting - the joy of existence through complete conviction. Any judgments and values you experience from such actions are not reflective of Being but only of your God - that said, though, it is your God that delivers you as Being. This as a You or the individual will always remain an illusion at best because there is not One God - and luckily so because otherwise life could not exist - my point about One God not being an experience - or it becomes a radicalization of religion.
The story of creation as they are found in Genesis should be read literally - it would be the only way they can reveal any connectedness to The author. In a sense we’ve (our belief in One God as the only experience) turned Being inside out and this begs the question ‘why’. That was Nietzsche’s story and perhaps my infatuation with these themes.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:23 am
It isn’t the concept of different gods that reveals the radicalization of religion, but rather each person’s interpretation of God. Just because one person interprets God as being vengeful (as in the case of radical islamists) doesn’t make God vengeful (you can, of course, substitute and adjective you choose). And I think you’re confusing religion with spirituality. There is a very big difference between the two.
To say that Hilter’s and Dahmer’s atrocities against other people (and they are, in no way, on par with each other), you forget to include the concept of free will in the equation – which is God-given, but necessarily of God. It’s not that the judgments and values of such actions are reflective of Being or of God, but rather that their respective choices (read: free will) is about indulging their own human egos. To say that Hitler worshiped Power doesn’t mean that Power is God (or even a god). It is people who bastardize religion to suit their own purposes that makes it radical not the other way around.
And I still disagree with you that reading the biblical Creation stories literally is the only way to reveal any connectedness to the author (small “a” used purposefully – that’s for another discussion) – I’m not saying one can’t connect to the author by a literal reading, either. All I’m saying (as I again reiterate) is that the argument between evolution and creation is moot because it’s a pissing contest.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:53 am
As far as I’ve checked both Evolutionary Theory and quantum physics have rejected finite physical reality as a starting point for discussion. You are still only talking about ‘your-self’ and in both Evolutionary theory and quantum physics this can no longer play into the equation. You are reducing existence to your personal free will - you’re choosing to accept existence or deny it. It’s only the philosophers and the clergy who cling to this idea because, as Schopenhauer said, if a philosopher (same goes for a clergyman) ever said anything honest, he’d be out of a job. All I know that Hitler ever did wrong was to lose a war - that’s why we don’t really care about what happens to people in Iraq (or if we decide to bomb Iran) - the million or so people killed due to our occupation are only ‘collateral damage’ and not really of value in the Big picture - i.e. the idea of God and morality being reduced into Being - i.e. your Free Will - and this sounds pretty awful if it can’t even acknowledge its own brutality. It’s disrpectful to those million dead Iraqis. The truth is in the appearance and life (as a moral value) by the mere fact of itself existing is determined by winning - this is why we don’t really feel bad about the millions of Native Americans - or are you ready to shoot your parents and neighbors so that you can help return their land to them? The first rule of garlic; life is always positive no matter how rank the stew is. Don’t confuse God and Being. Your god gives you morality but its not an absolute morality. The Columbine shooter had a lot of morality and their God was also quite powerful… the story is still present. This is not a statement of agreement, either. It’s simply acknowledging existence as positive.
I think Richard Dawkins is losing the argument because he’s allowing another god to define ‘what a god or religions is’. Don’t forget that the origins of all our current mathematics come from a spirit which did not define Religion in the manner you’re defining it. Matter of fact they considered you an atheist - objectifying existence can only happen in the complete annihilation of existence. If Dawkins were to embrace the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a lesser god of delivering his story of evolution it would actually validate his theories non-physically-finite picture - he’s done things like given Zeitgeist its own gene because events happen in evolution which transcend time and space - hence the actual values of Time and Space occur outside of the so-called physical acts - just like in Ancient Greece. Same goes with the current idea of spontaneous mutation. As for the physicist, I won’t go there because some of their storylines are so whacked-out I don’t think you’d believe me.
I think you lose me on this because you believe time and space exist and you are an individual somewhere along that time line.
And this is why the ’stories’ have to deliver the reader - the stories hold time and space outside of the experience. Everything else is an illusion. If the sun rose this morning show it to me… it’s not a possibility. You can only show me pictures and discuss the physics… discuss and relate images in a current a different realm.
This is tricky stuff and there are other problems with this philosophy. If you come across any Betrand Russel or Alfred North Whitehead they tried dealing with these issues but failed. It comes down to things like Unicorns… ha, ha, ha. Which is not the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
As someone who doesn’t subscribe to quantum physics (having never studied it), and who isn’t very good at philosophy (I think I scraped by with a C back in the day), we both know that I won’t win a debate with you on those points (there’s nothing like a pissing contest between friends, ha! ?), so I’m not even going to try. I will address a couple of other things, though…
I don’t entirely reduce existence to free will – mostly because there are a great many things I need to sort out for myself in terms of what I believe about fate / destiny – but I do believe that free will plays a very big part in the human condition. I don’t for a minute believe it comes down to simply choosing to accept or deny existence. If nothing else, I’ve learned that nothing is ever as black or as white as it seems. And even if I have reduced existence to free will and nothing else, as you claim, it does, in no way, exonerate what Hitler, or anyone else of his ilk, has done.
To say that the only thing he did wrong was lose a war is only true in the fact that he lost the war - history is written by the winners as you stated. Did Hitler do some good for the German people? Of course he did – you and I have had this particular conversation privately and we both agree (though perhaps not to the same extent), that, at the very least, bringing Germany out of the depression following WWI was a great endeavor – but the good things he did doesn’t excuse the carnage that came afterwards. One doesn’t balance the other out. That would essentially fall under the concept of buying indulgences to excuse one’s choice of behavior. This reasoning holds true for the smaller scale, too – I’m sure that people like Dahmer and the Columbine shooters had their good points too – there is no one in this world who is purely evil or purely good – but, again, one good thing doesn’t balance out one bad thing. Period.
You get the last word.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:24 am
[...] blinds them to the overall importance of what is contained in the Bible. As stated in my previous TBatM post, it all comes down to not being able to see the forest for the [...]